Obama joins 3 other US presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize - CSMonitor.com Obama joins 3 other US presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize President Obama delivers remarks from the Rose Garden on Friday after receiving word that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. NEWSCOM View Caption of Barack Obama is not the only one. The other US Presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize are, in chronological order, Theodore Roosevelt , Woodrow Wilson , and Jimmy Carter . (You can watch President Obama's remarks here ). Theodore Roosevelt was the first American to won a Nobel in any category. His Peace Prize was for his work in helping broker the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Normally, a US Secretary of State would have handled such diplomatic chores. But Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, John Hay , died in July 1905, and the forceful TR took charge of the duties himself. Photos of the Day Photos of the day 02/08 Further talks took place at the US Naval Base at Portsmouth, New Hampshire . The Treaty of Portsmouth was signed on September 5, 1905.

Roosevelt did not pick up his Nobel medal, or his prize money, until 1910. He said he did not feel right accepting them while in office. Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his services in establishing the League of Nations. Following the tragedy of World War I, Wilson decided to lead the US peace delegation personally. He traveled to Paris in 1919 to press his idealistic vision of a world united against war. While the peace treaty itself did not reflect all the magnanimity of his famous “Fourteen Points” in support of peace, he did secure the adoption of a covenant for a League of Nations , a precursor to today’s UN . He barnstormed around the US in the months that followed in an effort to push ratification of American membership in the League through the Senate. But the strain of the effort resulted in a stroke that robbed him of his health. In the end, the US did not join, as ratification was defeated. Jimmy Carter is the only president to have won the Nobel following his time in office.

His was awarded in 2002, for “his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development,” in the words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee . Many commentators at the time felt that the award was in recognition for a man who appeared to have redefined how much an ex-president could accomplish. Carter previously had come close to winning the Peace Prize in 1978 for his efforts in bringing together Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to sign the Camp David Peace Accords. Next up American Presidents Who Won the Nobel Peace Prize Introduction Four American Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize. President Woodrow Wilson--Wilson won the peace prize for his work in founding the League of Nations President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt--President Roosevelt negotiated a peace treaty ending the bloody war between Japan and Russia.

President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter--Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his many accomplishement in promoting peace and human rights, including the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel President Barack Obama--According to the Nobel Prize Committee, President Obama won the award for "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics." Video of the announcement of President Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Video of President Obama's comments upon winning the 2009. Nobel Peace Prize Sources and Links on American Presidents Who Won the Nobel Peace Prize: Why Was President Obama Gifted The Nobel Peace Prize? - The Answer to The Burning Question Du Jour we are gonna change the world!ï¿½ (The Obama Kids Song) President Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The President is delighted and ï¿½Says Heï¿½s ï¿½Surprisedï¿½ and ï¿½Humbledï¿½ï¿½ according to the New York Times.

When I first penned ï¿½How to Win the Nobel Peace Prizeï¿½ in great anguish in April 2003, in Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave as the ï¿½shock and aweï¿½ of Iraq was under way, I hadn't the full prescience of all the future players at the time for I grossly omitted the new name. My apologies to the harbingers of 'change'. Their mantra, and the $2 billion spent creating it , has obviously been very effective. After the ï¿½peace makerï¿½ moniker, anointment as the ï¿½Messiahï¿½ really can't be that far behind. This Machiavellian fabrication of a 'savior' was already examined in Mr. Obama - The Post Modern Coup in November 2008. It is astonishing to me how simplistic the most lauded dissent-chiefs and most profound intellectuals are in the West. Even when they critique absurdities and war-mongering as per their good conscience, they tread remarkably gently. Look at historian Howard Zinn's comment in the UK Guardian .

He is once again simplistic in his vocal dissent piece - just as he has been all along on 911 - by deliberately not seeing the Orwellian propaganda agenda behind the Peace Prize: ï¿½I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.ï¿½ No, No, NO! Never 'superficial estimates' and never 'empty gestures'. Rather, laying the seeds of masterful propaganda towards Orwellian social engineering .

Thus, Professor Zinn's concluding prescription: ï¿½The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of historyï¿½, which, since he diagnosed the disease incorrectly, is a cure, I am sure, to the problem that he has posited in his own mind, but one that has no forensic bearing to the modernity plaguing mankind. Indeed, this ï¿½modernityï¿½ is itself ï¿½as old as mankindï¿½. So while Howard Zinn does conscionably lament the bizarre awarding of peace prizes to murderous trigger pullers, he very carefully does not mention the prime-movers whom they work for: ï¿½Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger , who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!ï¿½ Ever since hectoring hegemons have existed, ever since oligarchs have existed wielding power from behind the scenes through their ' errand boys ', ever since they discovered social engineering, and especially ever since Edward Bernays discovered and employed Public Relations which coincided approximately with the time that Nobel peace prizes started to be awarded, these accolades from the high and mighty serve the oligarchic agendas as needed. Since Professor Howard Zinn, as a profound historian who would like us to learn from history, is berating the Nobel Peace Committee on their lacking ï¿½some understanding of historyï¿½, watch the BBC documentary Century of Self to observe how Edward Bernays himself fabricated President Woodrow Wilson's aura as the European 'savior' right after the ï¿½he kept us out of the warï¿½ devil had taken America to World War I at the behest of his handlers Bernard Baruch and Col. Edward Mandell House , both of whom represented the international bankers.

House even penned the rationale for having 'errand boys' and controlling them in a fictional narrative based upon his own role during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Who is channeling President Obama's energies such that despite all his election promises to the contrary, he is very predictably maintaining the same overarching policy axioms as his predecessor from his day one in office? These prizes are anything but ï¿½empty gesturesï¿½. It is both a payoff to tickle the ego of the 'errand boy', and a propaganda seed. In the expert hands of the Mighty Wurlitzer , such a gift can convince the masses of the most ridiculous absurdities, like the War on Terror already has. The proof of these statements of fact is both empirical, and historical. Watch Barack Obama crafted into a fine new global 'savior' at the expense of the ' untermenschen '. That's why the United States President, ceremoniously presiding over the most militarized superpower in the world which has just devastated two civilizations to smithereens, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while he rapidly accelerates his war prosecution to bring ï¿½peaceï¿½ in a one-world government .

Here is the excerpt from Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave. How to win the Nobel Peace Prize President Jimmy Carter, known as the conscionable president, refused to bomb Tehran despite recommendations from his wife and advisors, as noted by a speaker recently, builds homes for Habitat for Humanity with his own bare hands, and is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. His own National Security Advisor (ZB - Zbigniew Brzezinski ) took credit for handing the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, leading to the destruction of an entire civilization and loss of multiple of its generations to multiple civil wars and poverty, eventually leading to 911 - if one is to believe the facile version of 911 put forth by the American Government. Whether or not Bin Laden was involved in 911, the facts of history attest to the machinations of the United States of America in the exercise of its military and economic power since the end of World War II as forcefully articulated by George Kennan in 1948: ï¿½...We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization.

The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.ï¿½ *8 ZB's own confessions to this end are highly instructive. The 1998 ZB interview to "Le Nouvel Observateur", translated from the original French by author and historian Bill Blum, is reproduced below. The translator notes that: ï¿½*There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.ï¿½ Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [" From the Shadows "], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes.

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.

It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers.

But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.*9 Frighteningly amoral execution of George Kennan's policy articulation from 1948 of ï¿½going to have to deal in straight power conceptsï¿½. Wouldn't you say that all American Presidents have been doing exactly that? I had also personally witnessed on television, President Carter in 1978 toasting to the health of the King of Persia, Raza Shah, with approximately the following words: ï¿½To your majesty, to the love that your people have for you.ï¿½ This to a tyrant responsible for brutally suppressing his own people with American supplied weapons, and while Carter is toasting his host inside the Palace, outside the streets are filled with people protesting their king. When the revolution proceeds a few month later, instead of a mea culpa, a reign of vilification, long war, and sanctions is imposed on the people of Iran. And for what crime? For wanting their freedom from American-CIA imposed tyranny at the hands of one of their own elite?

The Iran Hostage Crisis , covered on ABC Nightline daily, which I would occasionally catch while eating dinner in the late night cafeteria at MIT, as I recall was quite devoid of any significant history or accurate analysis of the past 26 years leading up to the crisis. I subsequently saw a shredded memo painstakingly put together and freely available in the streets of most countries in the region about some of the imperial work being done by the American staff in the US embassy in Teheran, whom the hostage takers were calling CIA spies. The taking of these hostages, many of them civilians, was probably the biggest blunder the Iranians made after their revolution, and were paid for in spades by America with the war imposed on them through Iraq. If Jimmy Carter had deserved any Peace Prize, it would have been to avert the crisis with Tehran and successfully bring back the hostages, made amends with Iran for its people finally exercising their will and set the stage for friendship between the two countries, leaving a legacy of peace and prosperity for the region and appreciated the world over. He did not do that. What is the prize for? You might say Camp David and Egypt-Israel peace accord over a desert that was militarily occupied in a war?

When his own people call Anwar Sadat a traitor for making his private and separate peace with Israel and breaking up the Arab stance on Palestine which is what Israel wanted all along; and he is also a despised dictator of his own people hated and killed by them for his oppressive policies only to be replaced by another brutish dictator who is also continually kept in power by being the second largest US aid recipient in the world after Israel - is that a peace at the barrel of a gun or an enduring peace with justice? Brokering a ï¿½peace accordï¿½ that was only a new manifestation of an old ï¿½divide and conquerï¿½ plan that the peoples at least on one side of it did not want, and which only allowed Israel a freer hand to continue suppressing the Palestinians and incrementally continue to swallow up their lands without interference from its Arab neighbors, instead of one in which all could have lived in justice and peace with full rights of return for those displaced, is an imperial farce forced upon a beleaguered peoples.

And the impact of precisely this ï¿½peace accordï¿½ for which Carter got the ï¿½peaceï¿½ prize are visible to all and sundry in Palestine - an amazing case study in faits accomplis that become ï¿½irreversibleï¿½ - a modern day genocidal resettlement of another's land right before the very eyes of the silently bespectating world! What about Menachem Begin? He certainly also had all the qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize, having blown up the King David Hotel in 1948 as part of the terrorist Stern-Irgun gangs and was once the most wanted criminal in Britain.*9A Let's see who might be in line next? Ariel Sharon and George Bush Jr. and Sr ., as well as Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski, because after all, they did defeat the Soviet Union and bring an end to the four decade long Cold War. They all appear to have the right pedigree of ï¿½blood-experienceï¿½ for the Nobel Peace Prize! So pardon me if I am not tripping all over myself congratulating the ï¿½peace prizeï¿½ winners!

Read the rest of chapter 2 in full context . Postscript Note December 11, 2009 Thank you Mr. President for the everlasting peace which is finally to be had in our new world government. All the fabricated crises, as in the Foundation Trilogy , have provided the outstanding pretexts. While it is true that none are more hopelessly enslaved in perpetual war than those who are falsely led to believe they do so for peace: How to win the Nobel Peace Prize How to win the Nobel Peace Prize December 15th, 2009 Zahir Ebrahim Project Humanbeingsfirst.org The Answer to the Burning Question du jour: Why was President Obama Gifted the Nobel Peace Prize? Also see: Obama: Manufacturing A Savior––A Case Study In Social Engineering || The Brilliant Construction of World Order – Or a children's bedtime story In complete realization of the 'change' mantra: “We are gonna spread happiness, we are gonna spread freeeeedom, Obama's gonna change it, we are gonna change the world!” ( The Obama Kids Song ) ident Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The President is delighted and “Says He’s ‘Surprised’ and ‘Humbled’” according to the New York Times . When I first penned “How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize” in great anguish in April 2003, in Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave as the “shock and awe” of Iraq was under way, I hadn't the full prescience of all the future players at the time for I grossly omitted the new name. My apologies to the harbingers of 'change'. Their mantra, and the $2 billion spent creating it , has obviously been very effective. After the “peace maker” moniker, anointment as the “Messiah” really can't be that far behind. This Machiavellian fabrication of a 'savior' was already examined in Mr. Obama – The Post Modern Coup in November 2008. It is astonishing to me how simplistic the most lauded dissent-chiefs and most profound intellectuals are in the West. Even when they critique absurdities and war-mongering as per their good conscience, they tread remarkably gently. Look at historian Howard Zinn's comment in the UK Guardian .

He is once again simplistic in his vocal dissent piece – just as he has been all along on 911 – by deliberately not seeing the Orwellian propaganda agenda behind the Peace Prize: “I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.” (emphasis added) No, No, NO! Never 'superficial estimates' and never 'empty gestures'. Rather, laying the seeds of masterful propaganda towards Orwellian social engineering. Thus, Professor Zinn's concluding prescription: “The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history”, which, since he diagnosed the disease incorrectly, is a cure, I am sure, to the problem that he has posited in his own mind, but one that has no forensic bearing to the modernity plaguing mankind.

Indeed, this “modernity” is itself “as old as mankind”. So while Howard Zinn does conscionably lament the bizarre awarding of peace prizes to murderous trigger pullers , he very carefully does not mention the prime-movers whom they work for: “Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!” Ever since hectoring hegemons have existed, ever since oligarchs have existed wielding power from behind the scenes through their 'errand boys' , ever since they discovered social engineering, and especially ever since Edward Bernays discovered and employed Public Relations which coincided approximately with the time that Nobel peace prizes started to be awarded, these accolades from the high and mighty serve the oligarchic agendas as needed.

Since Professor Howard Zinn, as a profound historian who would like us to learn from history, is berating the Nobel Peace Committee on their lacking “some understanding of history”, watch the BBC documentary Century of Self to observe how Edward Bernays himself fabricated President Woodrow Wilson's aura as the European 'savior' right after the “he kept us out of the war” devil had taken America to World War I at the behest of his handlers Bernard Baruch and Col. Edward Mandell House, both of whom represented the international bankers. House even penned the rationale for having 'errand boys' and controlling them in a fictional narrative based upon his own role during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Who is channeling President Obama's energies such that despite all his election promises to the contrary, he is very predictably maintaining the same overarching policy axioms as his predecessor from his day one in office ? These prizes are anything but “empty gestures”. It is both a payoff to tickle the ego of the 'errand boy', and a propaganda seed. In the expert hands of the Mighty Wurlitzer , such a gift can convince the masses of the most ridiculous absurdities, like the War on Terror already has.

The proof of these statements of fact is both empirical, and historical. Watch Barack Obama crafted into a fine new global 'savior' at the expense of the 'untermenschen'. That's why the United States President, ceremoniously presiding over the most militarized superpower in the world which has just devastated two civilizations to smithereens, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while he rapidly accelerates his war prosecution to bring “peace” in a one-world government . Here is the excerpt from Chapter 2 of Prisoners of the Cave. How to win the Nobel Peace Prize President Jimmy Carter, known as the conscionable president, refused to bomb Tehran despite recommendations from his wife and advisors, as noted by a speaker recently, builds homes for Habitat for Humanity with his own bare hands, and is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. His own National Security Advisor (ZB) took credit for handing the Soviets their Vietnam in Afghanistan, leading to the destruction of an entire civilization and loss of multiple of its generations to multiple civil wars and poverty, eventually leading to 911 - if one is to believe the facile version of 911 put forth by the American Government.

Whether or not Bin Laden was involved in 911, the facts of history attest to the machinations of the United States of America in the exercise of its military and economic power since the end of World War II as forcefully articulated by George Kennan in 1948: “... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.”*8 ZB's own confessions to this end are highly instructive. The 1998 ZB interview to "Le Nouvel Observateur", translated from the original French by author and historian Bill Blum, is reproduced below.

The translator notes that: “*There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.” Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.

And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.*9 Frighteningly amoral execution of George Kennan's policy articulation from 1948 of “going to have to deal in straight power concepts”. Wouldn't you say that all American Presidents have been doing exactly that?

I had also personally witnessed on television, President Carter in 1978 toasting to the health of the King of Persia, Raza Shah, with approximately the following words: ~“To your majesty, to the love that your people have for you.” This to a tyrant responsible for brutally suppressing his own people with American supplied weapons, and while Carter is toasting his host inside the Palace, outside the streets are filled with people protesting their king. When the revolution proceeds a few month later, instead of a mea culpa, a reign of vilification, long war, and sanctions is imposed on the people of Iran. And for what crime? For wanting their freedom from American-CIA imposed tyranny at the hands of one of their own elite? The Iran Hostage Crisis, covered on ABC Nightline daily, which I would occasionally catch while eating dinner in the late night cafeteria at MIT, as I recall was quite devoid of any significant history or accurate analysis of the past 26 years leading up to the crisis.

I subsequently saw a shredded memo painstakingly put together and freely available in the streets of most countries in the region about some of the imperial work being done by the American staff in the US embassy in Teheran, whom the hostage takers were calling CIA spies. The taking of these hostages, many of them civilians, was probably the biggest blunder the Iranians made after their revolution, and were paid for in spades by America with the war imposed on them through Iraq. If Jimmy Carter had deserved any Peace Prize, it would have been to avert the crisis with Tehran and successfully bring back the hostages, made amends with Iran for its people finally exercising their will and set the stage for friendship between the two countries, leaving a legacy of peace and prosperity for the region and appreciated the world over. He did not do that. What is the prize for? You might say Camp David and Egypt-Israel peace accord over a desert that was militarily occupied in a war?

When his own people call Anwar Sadaat a traitor for making his private and separate peace with Israel and breaking up the Arab stance on Palestine which is what Israel wanted all along; and he is also a despised dictator of his own people hated and killed by them for his oppressive policies only to be replaced by another brutish dictator who is also continually kept in power by being the second largest US aid recipient in the world after Israel – is that a peace at the barrel of a gun or an enduring peace with justice? Brokering a “peace accord” that was only a new manifestation of an old “divide and conquer” plan that the peoples at least on one side of it did not want, and which only allowed Israel a freer hand to continue suppressing the Palestinians and incrementally continue to swallow up their lands without interference from its Arab neighbors, instead of one in which all could have lived in justice and peace with full rights of return for those displaced, is an imperial farce forced upon a beleaguered peoples.

And the impact of precisely this “peace accord” for which Carter got the “peace” prize are visible to all and sundry in Palestine – an amazing case study in faits accomplis that become “irreversible” – a modern day genocidal resettlement of another's land right before the very eyes of the silently bespectating world! What about Menachem Begin? He certainly also had all the qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize, having blown up the King David Hotel in 1948 as part of the terrorist Stern-Irgun gangs and was once the most wanted criminal in Britain.*9A Let's see who might be in line next? Ariel Sharon and George Bush Jr. and Sr., as well as Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski, because after all, they did defeat the Soviet Union and bring an end to the four decade long Cold War. They all appear to have the right pedigree of “blood-experience” for the Nobel Peace Prize! So pardon me if I am not tripping all over myself congratulating the “peace prize” winners! Read the rest of chapter 2 in full context here . ---------- Postscript Note by Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org Dec.

11, 2009 Thank you Mr. President for the everlasting peace which is finally to be had in our new world government. All the fabricated crises, as in the Foundation Trilogy, have provided the outstanding pretexts. While it is true that none are more hopelessly enslaved in perpetual war than those who are falsely led to believe they do so for peace: It is also a fact that no empire in the history of mankind has accomplished what is being achieved with these endless manufactured crises and the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to solve them. The poor Conservative guy voiceover-ing the new EU Council President heralding the good news ahead of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, apparently either doesn't fathom the meaning of fait accompli, or is too darn used to the free-world order to appreciate the desirability of a Boot stamped on the human face in the one-world order – what a slop: These simpleton plebeian minds, “unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility”, persistently fail to appreciate the value of the “considerable politicial sophistication” that has gone into the calculus of Global Governance.

Poorly read of history as they are, and weaned on the immediate gratification of the here and the now having pursued their 'American Dreams' in deep slumber all of their lives, they naturally fail to recognize the distemper of hegemony when it is inchoate and kept brewing under covers: “Peace and its duration, like war, is determined by natural laws that in their fundamental principles do not vary nor are found wanting.”; dismiss it as 'conspiracy theory' when an odd iconoclast reveals it; and subsequently fail to recognize its fait accompli once it becomes unveiled to all and sundry: “In this epoch of war upon which the Empire is about to enter, hopes of peace are futile; constitutions and kings and gods are without avail, for these are the old, old struggles that govern the growth and dissolution of national life.” And so, Mr. President Barack Obama, I finally offer you my humble congratulations, even if somewhat belated and for which I hope I may be forgiven! The story of the Brilliant Construction of World Order during your tenure at least makes for a good children's bedtime story , if nothing else. -###- Did You Know?

| Hoover Presidential Foundation Here is a list of interesting facts regarding President Herbert Hoover and his family. Did you know... The Hoovers were eyewitnesses to the Boxer Rebellion? Herbert Hoover was the first President born west of the Mississippi? Herbert Hoover organized the fourth (not the first) Cal-Stanford game? Herbert Hoover held the Florida state record for largest bonefish caught from 1947 to 1958? Herbert Hoover had a comet named for him? Personal Information Herbert Hoover had one brother, Theodore, who was 3 1/2 years older, and one sister, Mary (called May) who was 2 years younger. Herbert Hoover was 5 ft. 11 inches tall. Herbert Hoover's shoe size was 11.5 and his hat size was 7.25. Honors & Awards Herbert Hoover was tendered 87 honorary degrees, which may have been a world record during his lifetime. Herbert Hoover was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize - in 1921, 1933, 1941, 1946 and 1964.

There are currently 53 schools in the United States, 1 in Germany, and 1 in Poland named for Herbert Hoover. There are two asteroids named for Herbert Hoover, Hooveria (discovered 1920) and Herberta (discovered 1935). Pre-Presidency Herbert Hoover was born in West Branch, Iowa on the night of August 10-11, 1874, but no one noticed the exact time. Some documents list his birthday as August 11, but most records, and Mr. Hoover himself, went with August 10. Herbert Hoover became an orphan at the age of nine when his mother died in February, 1884. His father had died in December, 1880. Herbert was raised by relatives in Iowa and Oregon. Herbert Hoover was one of the very first students at Leland Stanford, Jr. University, graduating as a member of the "Pioneer" class of 1895 with a bachelor's degree in geology.

Herbert Hoover rose to public prominence during World War I as the Chairman of the Commission for Relief in Belgium, a non-profit, multi-national, non-governmental organization that provided food for more than 9,000,000 Belgian and French civilians trapped behind the front lines. Herbert Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce from March 5, 1921 to August 21, 1928, when he resigned to run for President. To date, he is the longest serving Commerce Secretary in U. S. history. In 1923 Herbert Hoover founded the American Child Health Association, an organization dedicated to raising public awareness of child health problems throughout the United States. Mr. Hoover served as the president of the ACHA until 1928. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover was the first person to appear on television, on April 7, 1927, in a demonstration transmission conducted between Washington and New York by Bell Laboratories. Presidency Herbert Hoover was the first President born west of the Mississippi River and the only President born in Iowa. Herbert Hoover was the first President to have a telephone on his desk in the Oval Office.

To help President Hoover stay fit, White House doctor Cdr. Joel Boone invented a game called "Hooverball," which is a combination of volleyball and tennis using a weighted medicine ball. Post-Presidency Former-President Hoover lived for 31 years, 231 days after leaving office, longer than any other Former-President until President Jimmy Carter surpassed him on September 7, 2012. Former-President Hoover chaired two Commissions on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, one under President Truman and the other under President Eisenhower. The Hoover Commissions studied the organization and methods of operation of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, and recommended changes to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service. In 1949, Former-President Hoover declined an offer from Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York to appoint Hoover to the U. S. Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Robert F. Wagner. John Foster Dulles was instead nominated to fill the vacancy. Former-President Hoover served as Chairman of the Boys' Clubs of America from 1936 until his death in 1964.

Herbert & Lou Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover were both born in Iowa, Lou in Waterloo and Herbert in West Branch. They met as students at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover both graduated from Stanford University with degrees in Geology. As newlyweds, the Hoovers lived for almost 2 years in China while Herbert worked as a mining engineer and executive. In the summer of 1900 they were caught up in the Boxer Rebellion and were besieged for three weeks in the city of Tientsin. During the Hoovers' residence in China, Lou Henry Hoover became fairly fluent in Chinese, Herbert less so. In later years they would occasionally speak Chinese to each other when they didn't want people around them to understand what they were saying. Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover had two sons, Herbert Charles Hoover (Aug. 4, 1903-Jul. 9, 1969) and Allan Henry Hoover (Jul. 17, 1907-Nov. 4, 1993). Both graduated from Stanford like their parents.

Between 1907 and 1912, Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover collaborated on translating into English Georgius Agricola's massive Renaissance mining treatise De Re Metallica. The Hoovers' translation is still in print.

Question: Who is the only US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize after leaving office?
Answer: Jimmy Carter